If you are going to be shooting surfing regularly, you may want to test drive the EF100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS. It's a great lens for the beach.

Aye aye on that I'm not taking anything away from the 70-200mm 2.8 IS or Non Is both great lenses but you will need the reach of at least 300mm. I have both 70-200 2.8 Non Is and 100-400mm 4.5-5.6. I find myself using the latter for the water sports.

AdamJ

I use both the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II and the 70-200mm f/4 IS. You won't be disappointed with the optics of either. I find it practically impossible to discern any IQ difference in the copies I have.

The f/2.8 II is more practical if you intend using teleconverters. On the other hand, I would consider the f/4 IS as a lightweight lens whereas the f/2.8 IS II is in the heavyweight class. If I were heading for a beach, I would definitely be packing the f/4 IS.

If I had to choose one, I'd have the f/2.8 II but only because of its versatility, not for any IQ reasons.

I agree on the focal length front. 300 or 400mm reach is the starting point. I'd suggest 70-200 mkii + a teleconverter, or a 70-300L, 100-400, or a 300/400 prime, or a combination of any of these with a 7d/1d4. Depending on the spot, even 300mm is pretty short. I shoot surfing with a 300 2.8 IS + 1.4x on a 5d3 and am anxiously awaiting a new 7d2 so that i can get that extra reach back (and FPS).

if there is no more money for the 70-200 II, i would buy the tamron 24-70 (with vibration control!) instead of the canon 24-70 II. the tamron costs only half the price and is a very good performer. and then some money should be left over for the 70-200 II

I have a long lens for shooting from the beach already so the 70-200 wasn't going to fill that need, granted I do find myself pulled back to 200mm often for a more landscape style shot.

Instead of going longer after a bit of thinking for the future I instead went with the 16-35mm. I could use something wide as I only have a 10mm fisheye that I shoot with in the water on my 30D. In the future I'll be getting a housing for the 1Dx and the 16-35 is a great lens for in the water.

If you are in the water often I would say that is a great investment. I find myself using my 70-200 mainly for kayaking, skateboarding, bmx and some skiing (I do some close quarters stuff too with an 8-15 fish) as the distances are not that great.

Got the lenses yesterday and am beyond happy with my choices. Just shooting around the house and the beach a bit the past two days. Super fast autofocus, quick to lock on in low light also. Feel so much better on the 1DX than my non L primes which were my go to's prior. Whether I get the 70-200 or a waterhousing for the 1DX next will depend on what the majority of my work is moving into the spring.

One thing I don't see anyone suggesting here is to try using a lens rental service to see which works better for you - I use BorrowLenses.com but I know there are other services out there that you can try a lens out - it is how I came to determine I wanted the 70-200 f/2.8L II.

That's a bit extreme, isn't it? The Mark Is are excellent lenses- I just upgraded to the Mark II IS but I still like the background blur of my first one more. Wish I could post a comparison, but for some reason I can't upload anything to this site.Besides, I bet IS wouldn't be of much help at the speeds one shoots surfing anyway. Although I agree that in this case, f/4 IS would work fine- but after I tried the f/2.8 IS I was so smitten that I avoided buying the f/4 and waited to save up for the Mark I and then the Mark II.

Have the money to get the 24-70 2.8 II to pair with my 1Dx. It seems like a no brainer to me. I'll be using for event photography, portraits and will be getting into weddings. That said I'd really like to have a 70-200 as I love that range and use it often whether for surf photography or something else. Given the ISO performance on the 1Dx do I need IS (I really don't have enough money for the 2.8 IS II but may be able to swing the ver I)? Could I even go to f4 with good results or will I be spoiled by the sharpness of the 24-70?

I have the 70-200mm L 2.8 non IS and it is wonderful but you do need to be careful. I have a pretty steady hand and have learned to get used to it and alter the shutter speed to compensate. I also use it with a 2x converter and get great results to reduce weight in the bag.

Thats a shot I took for my local newspaper covering a new development with an old 40D and the 70-200 with a 2x MKII extender F8 1/640 ISO 200 at 400mm (or 640mm as it would be on a crop camera with the 2x)

But the IS is brilliant and if I could afford it would I get it!? Without doubt.

But in terms of sharpness of the 2.8 it goes in this order.

70-200mm L F2.8 IS II70-200mm L F2.870-200mm L F2.8 IS I

The non IS is a tad sharper than the VI IS. But I dont think you would notice. The 70-200mm L is about to be discontinued form the range and is a great price point as the IS II is nearly twice the price.